Wiktionary:Information desk

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Information desk

You can search in the archives of Information desk:

Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where newcomers can ask questions about words and about Wiktionary, ask for help, or post miscellaneous ideas that don’t fit in any of the other rooms.

To start a new topic, clicking on the “+” tab, or click here: Start a new topic.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), code which produces your signature, followed by a UTC timestamp.

For past questions, see /Archives.


April 2016

古希臘式搏擊Edit

Does this really count as "the Chinese term for pankration"? It seems more like a description. —suzukaze (tc) 05:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

潘克拉辛 seems to be the term. Under 概述, it says, "古希臘式搏擊乃Pankration的中文中性意譯詞彙". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

entry for ancient Greek νύξ, νυκτόςEdit

There are errors in the inflection for the ancient Greek word νύξ, νυκτός. I would fix them myself, but I've only done very basic editing, and fixing something in a template seems like something I could very easily screw up. A search around the Wiktionary site has produced only explanations that are probably very clear to people who understand them but that completely baffle me. Is there anybody (or any body) to whom/which I can report the errors so that they can be fixed by somebody who knows what s/he's doing? —This unsigned comment was added by Derfner (talkcontribs) at 14:36, 7 April 2016‎ (UTC).

I'm an admin and have been here for over 10 years and I can't figure out how to fix it either. I assume the problem you're talking about is the circumflex accent in the forms beginning with "νῦκτ-", which should be an acute since the upsilon in this word is short. There must be some error in Module:grc-decl, but module editing is so extremely esoteric that only a handful of our editors know how to do it. Perhaps ObsequiousNewt can figure out what's going wrong and will be able to fix it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Derfner, Angr: How about now? —JohnC5 14:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
All fixed as far as I'm concerned. (I can only assume that this was the problem Derfner was talking about.) So the problem was not in the module, but in the parameters for the template. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. For the automatic generation of correct accentation with this template, vowel length should be explicitly specified. —JohnC5 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Override Javascript?Edit

How do I override User:Conrad.Irwin/editor.js with my own version for testing? I created User:CodeCat/editor.js but it didn't do anything. —CodeCat 17:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't "override" it, since it's not a MediaWiki thing. If you want to test your version, you need to disable the gadget/preference that loads Conrad.Irwin's version and load your own version manually from your User:CodeCat/common.js with the line importScript('User:CodeCat/editor.js'); --WikiTiki89 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Would this be changed by integrating it into the gadget system? —CodeCat 17:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, it doesn't work. I included that line, but nothing gets loaded and there's no translation editor. —CodeCat 17:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Integrating it into the gadget system only means that it will get loaded automatically instead of manually. Did you try a cache-bypassing refresh? If that doesn't work then maybe there is an error in your script. Otherwise, User:Dixtosa may know what to do. --WikiTiki89 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Right now it's just the same as the old script, so if there's no errors in that, there's none in mine either. —CodeCat 17:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@DixtosaCodeCat 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I have never tried to override it (User:Dixtosa/editor.js is actually a clone for a different script). Anyways, try disabling it from this box You don't have the current version of

--Dixtosa (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dixtosa Disabling the existing editor isn't the problem, that part worked. The issue now is to enable my own custom version. That part isn't working. —CodeCat 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The checkbox in the preferences only makes one variable to change. So, editor.js is always loaded (probably a good idea since many scripts depend on editor API). In any case, remove this check if (! window.loadedEditor) from editor.js and you should be ready to go. --Dixtosa (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Coined by borrowing a preformed wordEdit

As @Sonofcawdrey remarks, it seems odd to say that something was "coined" if it was "borrowed". However, there are several other entries which do this, which may also need attention: urethra, bacteriophage, acetylene, empathy/empatia, bathyscaphe, alkahest (or is it saying the Latin term, which was borrowed, was coined?), pococurante(?), zephirum, taxi(?), אמפתיה(?), meli, naheka, harmóníum(?), doryphore, Suht-Wales. - -sche (discuss) 17:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

In some of those (urethra, meli#Hawaiian), we are clearly just misusing the word "coin". In others (naheka, doryphore, empathy, taxi), the word goes through a significant phonetic or semantic alteration, so I think it's fair to call it both a borrowing and a coinage. In still others (pococurante, אמפתיה, harmóníum, bacteriophage, acetylene, empathy, empatia, bathyscaphe, alkahest), it only says that it was coined in the language it was borrowed from, so there's no contradiction because they are describing different steps. I can't make up my mind about zephirum and Suht-Wales. --WikiTiki89 18:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Those that name a person as coiner are okay (I'm assuming they are accurate) - but ones that have "coined in [date]" seem to have been input by someone who misunderstood the use of the word coined. I don't know how many there are of this type - and I don't know how one can search for them. Of course, words can be coined in a certain year, but this should not be confused with the earliest attestation in OED - especially as OED earliests are not wholly reliable (Murray conjectured that 75% of OED's earliest citations could be antedated). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Have edited urethra accordingly. According to Online Etymological Dictionary, urethra was "coined" in Ancient Greek by Hippocrates - but this I cannot verify, and seems dubious. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

According to LSJ at Perseus, οὐρήθρα was used by both Aristotle and Hippocrates. Whether either of them actually coined the word is another question entirely. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I think what meli#Hawaiian says is OK. The word was coined in Hawaiian by being borrowed from Ancient Greek. It wasn't borrowed into Hawaiian in the way loanwords are usually borrowed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

wiktionary by print?Edit

What would be involved on the typesetting side in making wiktionary available via print to people without the Internet? I volunteer with an organization that sends books to prisoners and one of the more common (and thus unfulfilled due to demand) requests is for dictionaries. I've considered sending out a subset of wiktionary out to a self-publisher for printing, but not sure where to start. Thanks in advance for your help! —This unsigned comment was added by Wt6kf5 (talkcontribs).

creationEdit

am i creating something that i would in essence own as to be published as new topic, or word, or phase, when the computer asked me to create the new word or topic? please i need this answer for it deals directly with my problem that i havent been able to get an answer to out of anything or one where do i veiw this ive never been here before —This unsigned comment was added by LOW777E (talkcontribs).

Welcome to the wiki! In order for a term to be listed, it must meet the Criteria for inclusion, if that's what you are asking. -Xbony2 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

NumberEdit

Is there any guildline about criteria of creating number article? In korean wiktionary, A user is making infinitely number artlcle such as it. --Altostratus (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This may be relevant, but it appears there are no actual policies on the subject... -Xbony2 (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Derived terms sections, sym- and -pathyEdit

Hi. I was trying to determine if empathy and sympathy should be listed in -pathy#Derived terms. If I understand correctly, I just add a {{confix|sym|pathy|lang=en}} at the start of the Etymology section? I've done so for sympathy, but thought I'd ask before replicating on empathy.

Additionally, the derived terms section at sym- is created manually, and the section at -logy contains both methods, so that confused me further! Is there a preferred method, that I could potentially help transition to? I would guess {{suffixsee}}, but I couldn't see specifics in Wiktionary:Entry layout#Derived terms.

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding something fundamental, on any of these various questions. Thanks for any help! Quiddity (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the distinction between synchronic and diachronic etymologies. Or, whether we should describe words as being derived from a particular affix when the word was actually borrowed or derived from another language but could plausibly be analyzed as being composed of affixes in the original language. Different editors will have different opinions on this.
Sometimes it is appropriate to use {{suffixsee}}- if there are no redlinks in the table, if there are no glosses or other commentary in the table, or anything else that wouldn't show up with in automatic list. It also can only show the first 200 entries in the category. DTLHS (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Romanization of Gothic, but not Proto-Norse, etc.?Edit

Was wondering what the rationale behind adding romanized entries for Gothic entries is, if other languages with different scripts usually do not get such romanized entries (I do know of some others, like Japanese romaji, but they are seemingly not the rule). Adding a Proto-Norse lemma recently made me think of this - not everyone can type in Elder Futhark, and many browsers might not even display the symbols.

TL;DR: why is there swistar for 𐍃𐍅𐌹𐍃𐍄𐌰𐍂 ‎(swistar), but no swestar for ᛊᚹᛖᛊᛏᚨᚱ ‎(swestar)? 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 19:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

See these three votes (especially the "Rationale" sections, since that's what you're asking about). --WikiTiki89 19:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply once more, you seem to be all over the place. It does seem that by the rationale of the 2nd discussion you linked, Proto-Norse might well be included among the languages that might benefit from romanized entries. Possibly, however, the language was too underrepresented on Wiktionary at the time to be included? 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 19:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I would support having romanization entries for Runic terms, regardless of language. —CodeCat 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
So would I. In my opinion, the criterion for including romanizations should not be "not everyone can type in" the native script, not "many browsers might not even display the symbols", but rather "the majority of reference works (dictionary, grammar books, textbooks, etc.) present this language in romanization and not in the native script. Thus, I have supported romanization entries for Gothic and Primitive Irish and do support them for Proto-Norse, the Anatolian languages, and Sumerian, but I would not support them for Ancient Greek, Old Church Slavonic, Classical Arabic, and Biblical Hebrew. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Could (or should) another vote be organised on the matter? 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 21:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

capitalization of "century", "dynasty" and "province"Edit

Newbie question here. Do we capitalise "century" in 3rd Century BC, the 21st Century, etc.? They're proper nouns in this case, right? But I noticed Wikipedia does not capitalise their centuries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

And what about "dynasty"? Should I write the Tang Dynasty or the Tang dynasty? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

One more - "province". Should I write Henan Province or Henan province? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would not capitalize century. The 21st century isn't a proper noun, it's just a description. I would capitalize dynasty and province in the names Tang Dynasty and Henan Province, though, just like New York City and New York State. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Ngrams I used the 19th century so as not to conflict with the 20th Century Fox or 21st Century Fox. --WikiTiki89 14:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that capitalization of dynasty and province falls under the same rule as rivers and mountains:
“When talking about a specific mountain (Rocky Mountains), river (Mississippi River), state (State of Texas) or street (Main Street), capitalize the nouns and adjectives in the name.
“When talking about a common noun—such as a mountain, a state, a river, or a street—do not capitalize those words.” —Stephen (Talk) 21:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

ישועEdit

Is there a feminine equivalent to this Hebrew name? --Romanophile (contributions) 23:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure there isn't. Quick search on some baby name websites seems to confirm. Kleio (t · c) 01:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Though then again, yeshua is a historical name more than anything so you likely wouldn't find is equivalent on a modern website I guess.. Still, I haven't heard of any such female name, and I know a few. Kleio (t · c) 01:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Read in another language